Talking Points for January 6th Objecting to Electors
Monday, January 03 2005 @ 12:40 PM
Contributed by: admin

thedeanpeople.org
1/3/2005
jan6points.org

This document is intended to assist you in arguing that it is a moral imperative for all Members of Congress to take a stand and object to the presidential electors from Ohio, Florida, and other states. It is prepared for citizen-lobbyist who will have face-to-face meetings (most likely with staff members) to convey their concerns and those of millions of others.

We have found that there is no sufficient substitute for in-person dialog, which allows you to directly contradict the many rationalizations and excuses given for inaction, particularly regarding this matter.

We recommend that you internalize the content in these talking points as best you can, as it is difficult to control a conversation or anticipate which specific topics will be most useful in your case.

We have found that the most effective tactic is to engage the meeting participant in a back and forth exchange -- starting with eliciting their concerns. Ask them directly why their boss has not already joined with those like Rev. Jackson and Rep. Conyers. Should they not be forthcoming, you can interject some of the rationalizations below by saying "others have claimed that..."

The points are categorized as Informational, Argumentative, or Political/Strategic but this arrangement connotes no hierarchy of importance or effectiveness. Every situation is unique and you may have the opportunity to use many or few of these points in your effort.

For questions, comments, or more help just contact us at thedeanpeople@comcast.net

Informational Points -- to satisfy queries and combat honest ignorance

· It is the affirmative DUTY of each and every Member of Congress to personally judge the validity of presidential electors base on any information they have at hand. Yes, the apparently need to be told this. (See Note1 below)

· Each Senator/Rep is Constitutionally charged with the burden of being the backstop or safety valve for an election procedure that has rendered an invalid result

· States have no "right" to have electoral votes counted and many slates of electors have been disallowed in the past -- particularly after the Civil War

· The Voting Rights Act makes it unlawful for minorities to receive disparate treatment by any election process -- no willful or negligent act need be found to have occurred -- a disparate circumstance or result is sufficient for violation.

In 2001 the US Commission on Civil Rights made a legal finding of just such a violation in regard to the Florida election - undisputed evidence of poll-tax-lines and registration process violations makes clear that there has not been a correction of this finding

· If a state's election laws includes a contest provision, that state's election is not lawfully completed unless and until such contests have been disposed of judicially

· Elections are intended to measure the will of the people, not the will of the candidates; therefore, it does not matter if a candidate has conceded.

· An election is not a contest -- it is a survey -- an effort to measure an objective reality. (See Note2 below)

Argumentative Points -- to counter unfounded rationalizations, excuses, and fears

· What is being asked of the official is a simple question:

"Are hours-long poll-tax-lines for poor minority voters and none for affluent white voters a tolerable condition for you personally?"

Yes, strong stuff. But necessary stuff if we're going to secure our right to have confidence in free and fair elections.

· No unlawful election process can lawfully certify electors

· Objecting is the best action they can take to advance the general cause of "Election Reform"

Objecting to electors, successfully or not, creates a "consequence" for the failures of the system.

A traffic light rarely gets built until someone is killed or injured. Only after 9/11 did Congress seriously address anti-terrorism.

The same is true here and an objection will put states on notice that they had better remedy their system or face rejection in the future.

· We The People, through our representatives, have set out our election laws to ensure that election results reflect OUR will

Our law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it. We can never again allow "technical" or "legal" arguments and rationalizations to trump reality as we did in 2000.

· When the results of an election are in doubt, the moral burden is on the states to prove the results to be sound.

The People have an inalienable right to full confidence in the results.

Political/Strategic Points -- to provide pragmatic reasons to "do the right thing"

· Consider what standing up in 2001 did for the CBC. They are now without-a-doubt HEROS to the real Democratic party base. Perhaps not in DC, but among the regular party rank and file, Farenheit 9-11 immortalized their heroics.

· Standing on principle always inures to the benefit of the leader who does so. As President Clinton says, people will always choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right." It's certainly no secret that of what legitimate support Bush gets, much of it is simply based on a, carefully crafted, "strong leader" perception.

· Should the Democratic Party finally see the wisdom of taking this stand, of mounting such a "charge of the light brigade" (even if that's all it amounts to), it would not be surprising to see them garner an additional 5-7% of the white male vote, simply for showing the fortitude that demographic respects.

· We on the left could use more "preaching to the choir." We've allowed our liberal values and morals to be constantly attacked, in part because we are basically tolerant people.

And that requires us to "create the reality" to combat their created reality. (Ours of course grounded in something they are fairly unfamiliar with - actual reality.)

To create our (real) reality, it is our "allies" we need to focus on. And none of us should hesitate to put it to them starkly, as in: "So, you're taking the side of the bush regime over Congressman Conyers and Reverend Jackson? That is how you want to be remembered?"

Call it tough love. But we can't leave any moral escape hatches.

Because there aren't any.



Notes

Note1 -- We all watched in horror (many for the first time) as the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 opened by recounting how our political

"leaders" sat idly by on Jan. 6, 2001 as the Congressional Black Caucus tried nobly but futilely to object to the unlawful Florida

electors. But even Michael Moore seemed unaware of "the rest of the story."

On Jan. 7th two Democratic Senators were asked by Tim Russert why they didn't come to the defense of their House collegues. Their

answer (in unison): "Nobody asked us." The 2 Senators were Biden and Kerry (yes, really). Their answer revealed a complete dereliction of their sworn Constitutional duty, but was even more troubling in that Justice Stephen Breyer had included what amounts to targeted instruction on this very point in his dissent to the BushvGore edict.

For detail, see Section 3.1 below.

Note2 -- While an election in a democracy may well have many of the trappings of a contest or competition, its purpose is quite different. That purpose is to poll the electorate and determine an accurate measure of their choice for a representative or magistrate. Like the census, it is intented to measure an objective reality. A contest is a more limited endeavor. And while campaigns are certainly treated by the media as sporting events, their purpose is simply communication to the only real stakeholders in the process, the voters whose intent an election is simply one method to guage.

While it may be impracticable, there's no reason why we couldn't conduct our elections by hiring (bonded) agents to canvass the voters rather than requiring attendance at a "polling" place.





Full Discussion on making the Case for an
Objection to Tainted Electors on January 6th, 2005

1. Introduction

This is a moral case that we believe is strong. We do not intend to enumerate evidence or debate whether or not this or that problem is “legal proof.” It is actually counterproductive to get hung up on legal technicality. They must make a moral judgment grounded in the principles on which this nation was founded and the intent of our election law (and the intent of our law is to conduct elections that are free and fair and measure OUR will). They are our representatives. We are calling on them to represent us.

Our goal make it clear to them that they have a duty to judge the validity of electoral votes and the appointment of electors, and to get buy in on the ground rules on which their judgment of the will be made. If we get a Senator or Congressperson that says, "OK, I agree, those are the right rules. Now, which states and what specific violations would you cite?" We refer them to those who have this information or who can help them get it. For example, the Democratic Members of the House Committee on the Judiciary, NVRI, Election Protection, Black Box Voting, and many others.

If we are successful in helping one or more Senators to understand that it is their moral responsibility to stand up and object, and the principles on which they will make their objections, they have staffs to compile the details. And there are a host of problems to cite. That is the point. The number of questions is undeniable. The systematic underallocation of resources alone, which is well documented, is sufficient to raise an objection.

2. Election 2000: A look back

We know Gore won in 2000. The consortium analysis proved it -- Gore won when all the votes were counted. The rationalizations that under this or that scenario he would not have won a vote count (e.g., didn't count all the votes because of x y or z) are just attempts to use legal technicality to trump reality -- a fundamentally fascist view of the law

Florida wasn’t even all that "close". Long before SCOTUS stepped in, extrapolation of the mysteriously uncounted ballots conclusively demonstrated that Florida elected Gore by tens of thousands of voters (if not counted votes).

For anyone with any amount of morality or decency, that should have been the end of it. As an election is not a sporting event or contest of any kind. It is a survey of the will of the electorate. And the result of that survey had been demonstrated to a level of certitude that would be acceptable in any court case.

When these true facts are taken into account, Gore won by 46 electoral votes (292-246). Which is equal to roughly a dozen so-called "red states." How close does that sound?

Had Congress done its job in 2000, perhaps the public would have understood that legal technicality cannot be used to trump reality. If we know the will of the people, we must abide by it. We cannot allow reality to be trumped by fascist interpretation and perversion of the intent of our law.

3. Basic Elements of the Case
3.1 It is the Senator’s / Congressman’s duty to make a judgment

Many of the members of Congress do not seem to realize that they have a positive duty to judge the validity of the appointment of electors, and the votes they cast. It is important to verify whether or not the member of Congress understands that it is their duty to stand in judgment of the electoral vote. This is a grave responsibility. Ask what they understand their roll to be on January 6th. If they are not clear, offer clarification that they have a duty make a judgment.

On January 6th, 2005, when the members of the House and the Senate convene to count the electoral votes, it is more than a mere formality or ministerial responsibility; they have a positive duty to judge the legality of those votes. It is up to each member of Congress to independently judge whether or not electors are lawfully appointed.

531 U. S. ____ (2000), Breyer, J., dissenting, Bush v. Gore (from http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html - emphasis added)

The legislative history of the Act makes clear its intent to commit the power to resolve such disputes to Congress, rather than the courts:

“The two Houses are, by the Constitution, authorized to make the count of electoral votes. They can only count legal votes, and in doing so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal votes .... The power to determine rests with the two Houses, and there is no other constitutional tribunal.” H. Rep. No. 1638, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1886) (report submitted by Rep. Caldwell, Select Committee on the Election of President and Vice-President).

The Member of Congress who introduced the Act added:

“The power to judge of the legality of the votes is a necessary consequent of the power to count. The existence of this power is of absolute necessity to the preservation of the Government. The interests of all the States in their relations to each other in the Federal Union demand that the ultimate tribunal to decide upon the election of President should be a constituent body, in which the States in their federal relationships and the people in their sovereign capacity should be represented.” 18 Cong. Rec. 30 (1886).

Under the Constitution who else could decide? Who is nearer to the State in determining a question of vital importance to the whole union of States than the constituent body upon whom the Constitution has devolved the duty to count the vote?” Id., at 31.

To count “only legal votes” they MUST make a judgment.
3.2 The nature of the judgment

It also seems that many of the members believe that an objection requires a court finding of fraud. If that were the case, then they would have no roll. The issues would be dealt with in the courts.

They are Congress, not the Judiciary. They have a different roll to play. They are the back stop to ensure that the intent of the law and the will of the electorate is carried out. It is their job to “preserve the government” – i.e., to preserve a government that has been instituted by We the People, and that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

Their judgment is not bound by some narrow interpretation of election law. It is completely up to them to determine what constitutes a "regularly given" electoral vote and a “lawfully appointed” elector. They must make a moral decision grounded in the intent, not the letter, of the law; a decision that upholds the principle of consent.

We the People, through our representatives, have set out our election laws to ensure that election results reflect OUR will. Our law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it. We can never again allow "technical" or "legal" arguments and rationalizations to trump reality as we did in 2000. See Election 2000: A look back.

Each member of congress must make an independent judgment.
3.3 Burden of Proof

It may be debatable where election law places the burden of proof, but morally, when legality of the conduct of an election or the accuracy of its results have been called into question, the burden should be on the state to prove the conduct lawful and the results sounds. We believe the members of Congress must evaluate the validity of the electors in this light.

We the People, through our representatives, have set out our election laws to ensure that election results reflect OUR will. In a true America, our leaders only serve with the consent of the governed. If we have serious and justifiable doubts about the results of an election, as we do in the case, those results cannot be used as a measure of our consent. In this situation, the moral burden is on each state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that their results are accurate and lawfully obtained. There is no other patriotic option.

For a summary of the logic, see election2004_burden_of_proof.htm

When questions of discrimination are raised, the state must be asked to provide data on wait times at each polling place, demographics of the registered voters served by the polling place, and the number of resources (voting machines, poll workers) assigned and working during operating hours. If the state wants to be afforded the privilege of participation in the electoral college, they must be asked to prove, not simply assert, that its practices were not discriminatory.
3.4 The grounds for objection

Try to elicit what they believe the appropriate grounds for objection are. If it seems that they believe a finding of fraud is required, refer to The nature of the judgment. If they understand that such a finding is not required, what grounds do they intend to make the judgment on?

Back to the bottom line: In a true America, leaders serve only with the consent of the governed, and that consent must be obtained by lawful, fair, and open elections that accurately measure the will of the voters and instill confidence in the results.

Here are some of the questions we believe they must ask and answer:

· Were the electors appointed pursuant to an election in which the state met its obligation to conduct a free and fair election?

Have questions of discrimination been raised? Have these been disposed of to the satisfaction of the people? Has the state provided the data required to prove they did not create discriminatory barriers to voting? Is there data that proves there were discriminatory barriers to voting?

Whatever the margin of victory or number of electoral votes, if any state FAILS TO PROVE that the existence of poll-tax-lines, or any other unnecessary obstruction to voting, was not correlated with RACIAL, SOCIO-ECONOMIC, or PARTISAN STATUS of the voters, that state MUST NOT be afforded the privilege of participation in the electoral vote.

Arguments that the discrimination would not have affected the outcome are a sham. Are systematic violations of voting rights OK for those who live in a state in which the margin of victory for one candidate or the other is large? Of course not! Further, if any discrimination is found to be racially based, as was the legal finding of the US Commission on Civil Right in the 2000 Florida election, such a result is unlawful, as well as being intolerably immoral and contrary to American values.

· Is there sufficient public confidence in the results? If not, why not?

If there are questions pending, have there been efforts to investigate in order to restore public trust? Has the state met its burden to instill confidence? Or have they made matters worse by obstructing investigation and perverting the intent of our election laws?

· Does the official vote count accurately reflect the will of the electorate?

Have questions been raised in relation to the processes of recording or tabulating results? Have these questions been resolved to the satisfaction of the public? If there are open questions in this regard, has there been time to resolve them? Was the state derelict in that it failed to take the steps necessary to resolve the questions?

There has been a focus on the number of votes lost or gained to the "glitches" that have been discovered to date and a widespread notion that unless the number of votes associated with the “glitches” is high enough to "change the results", the glitches can be dismissed.

This is faulty thinking. Before one can even consider the number of votes affected by a problem, the nature of the problem must be examined.

If the nature of the problems calls into question the initial total, the election must be considered invalid. Whether the addition or subtraction of votes from an untrustworthy initial total will "change the outcome" is irrelevant. The issue is that the initial total is in doubt. Discovery of isolated problems can do nothing but add to that doubt. Only a comprehensive audit has the potential to remove the doubt. .
3.4.1 How these questions apply to Election 2004

Across the nation, people were forced to wait for hours to even attempt to cast their ballots. This onerous waiting time constitutes a de facto poll tax (time is money). In many cases, states are not even disputing the fact that systematic discrimination occurred. If such discrimination did occur, the state cannot be afforded the privilege of participation in the Electoral College until they remedy the problem in some manner.

The natures of the recording and tabulation problems that have been raised are very troubling. These are problems that have implications that reach far beyond this or that specific instance. We are learning that the software used to record and tabulate votes is seriously flawed, lacks basic internal audits and security protections, and produces results that are prone to undetectable corruption through error or deliberate tampering. The potential magnitude and scope of the impact on the results is breathtaking.

For example, across the county, machines were "improperly calibrated" to default to Bush. Investigation has been blocked and the evidence remains unsecured, but analysts have noted that the residual rate (instances of no vote cast) was reduced far beyond all predictions, and cite this as a key success of the voting machines. That success is actually a catastrophic corruption of the results if it was achieved by awarding the residual to Bush.

If the incredible problems we are seeing in the processes for recording and tabulating the vote were not enough, we have the poll-tax lines (time is money) and other intolerable and discriminatory barriers that voters faced on November 2nd.

4. Benefits
4.1 What is achieved by objecting to tainted electors?

Successive levels of success – even achievements related to simply enlisting people in the effort to lobby for an objection.
4.2 A pivotal show of strength

Anger about stolen election of 2000 is behind the incredible energy and unity of the Democrats in this past election.

With regard to the horrors of Election 2004, people are not "moving on" by choice. They are giving up and withdrawing, believing themselves to be powerless in the face of another theft. All they need is a spark.

Liberals, and Democrats in general, tend to be hesitant when it comes to accusation and punishment. (Something the right clearly revels in.) The problem with this tendency is that it creates not only a perception of weakness, but one of complicity. The failure to accuse or punish when an action warrants it in essence condones, and therefore abets, that action.

The perception of Democrats as weak is a serious problem and the intense anger that exists toward the beltway establishment and weak, conciliatory Democratic leadership is growing. If leaders in the party take a strong stand against the intolerable abuses of our democracy by objecting to electors from states that failed to meet their obligation to conduct free and fair elections, they will explode the perceptions of weakness, and excite and engage the base.

The first Senator to stand up and declare his or her intent to object to electors from states that have failed to meet their obligation to conduct a fair election would become a hero to that base. The “people-power” that would be tapped/released could be harnessed as the driving force for change.

Standing up is not just the right thing to do; it is the politically smart thing to do. But, whether or not this assessment of political impact is correct doesn't really matter. Taking a stand against those who are trampling on our SOLE founding principle -- the principle of consent -- is something that people of conscience must do, whatever the consequence. (See Silence is Complicity).

5. Resistance – Challenging the Rationalizations for Inaction
5.1 Kerry conceded and the electors met and voted. Isn’t that it?

This is a rationalization that has come up with regularity. “The Senator is waiting to see what Kerry does” or “Kerry has conceded, so it is over” or some other reliance on the assumed or expressed will of the candidate.

Elections are intended to measure the will of the people, not the will of the candidates; therefore, it does not matter if a candidate has conceded. A concession does not release the members of Congress from their duty to stand in judgment of the appointment of the electors and the votes they cast.
5.2 Silence is complicity

Look for an updated version of the document at http://pyhtp.org on Jan 4.
5.3 Elections have always been a mess

Look for an updated version of the document at http://pyhtp.org on Jan 4.
5.4 Objecting is futile

Look for an updated version of the document at http://pyhtp.org on Jan 4.

See What is achieved by objecting to tainted electors? above.

6. Key questions

Ask the tough questions that put the issues into stark relief. Elicit a response and reasons. Expose erroneous rationalizations.

· Will you rubber-stamp electoral votes from states that systematically, and indisputably, underallocated resources in a way that disenfranchised countless thousands of African American, elderly, and working poor voters who were unable to stand in lines for hours in the pouring rain, or who were misdirected?

· Will you rubber stamp electoral votes from states that have obstructed every effort to resolve serious allegations of fraud?

· Will you rubber stamp electors from states that have refused to allow independent verification or audit of any voting machine or independent inspection of the thousands of disallowed provisional ballots?

More to be provided. Look for an updated version of the document at http://pyhtp.org on Jan 4.

7. Narrative can be helpful

A story can provide a powerful context, but should be used with care. When you personalize the actors in a narrative, you insert intent. The case can be made without any reference to intent at all. It doesn’t matter why the discrimination or problems in recording or tabulation occurred, only the fact they occurred matter. If you believe it is a situation that narrative can be effective, here is one “story”

When members of Congress failed to reject the illegitimate Florida electors in 2000, they emboldened those who are willing to go to any lengths to manipulate the outcome of our elections. They have been allowed to benefit from their crimes against democracy, and they just keep building on their successes. Now, the "experts" have even implemented systems that are not only wide open to corruption, they have been designed to make it impossible to recount or validate the results!

We can hear the chuckles of derision as various "leaders" and elected representatives vow, once again, "to make sure it doesn't happen next time."

The methods differ from 2000, but the goal remains the same. In Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, and other battleground states, partisan election officials systematically, and indisputably, underallocated resources in a way that disenfranchised innumerable African American, elderly, and working poor voters. Turnout was cut in half in precincts across the nation as voters were prevented from expressing their will because their registrations had been thrown away, or they did not appear on the out-of-date precinct lists that were "accidentally" used, or they were misdirected, or they were unable to stand for hours in the pouring rain or blazing sun because election officials withheld voting machines.

So much for the vows to "Count Every Vote." It's a simple formula. Let them "Count Every Vote," we'll just pull out all the stops and make sure the “other guys” votes don’t get cast in the first place!

As successful as the efforts to suppress votes were, serious allegations remain unresolved that tell us that suppression was just a small part of the picture. For example, across the county, machines were "improperly calibrated" to default to Bush. Investigation has been blocked and the evidence remains unsecured, but analysts have noted that the residual rate (instances of no vote cast) was reduced far beyond all predictions, and cite this as a key success of the voting machines. That success is actually a catastrophic corruption of the results if it was achieved by awarding the residual to Bush.

Despite the powerful evidence of their crimes, the criminals remain confident that they will, once again, successfully "get away with the goods." And why shouldn’t they be confident? Their efforts to obstruct investigation and pervert the intent of our election laws have, so far, been successful. Each day that passes, I'm sure they sigh in relief, believing that if they can thwart efforts to investigate or obtain remedy through civil and/or criminal judicial means until January 6th, they'll be home free. Even if they are caught after the fact, it won’t matter. All that matters is keeping the stolen goods: the Presidency of the United States of America.

Unless you publicly declare your intent to fight for us NOW, and do everything in your power to stop them on January 6th, they will be right; they will get away with the goods.

If you fail to object to such intolerable abuses of our democratic processes, then the criminals will not be alone. You too must be held responsible for our descent into the Stalinist perversion of "democracy;" in which "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

8. Some arguments for us
8.1 Why am I doing this? Even if we get an objection and it is voted on, they will not uphold it.

If there is an objection, whatever happens, we are in MUCH better shape than we were in 2000.

· Every leader that speaks out is no longer one of the complicit. In 2000, no one spoke out except the CBC -- and that was one day that was swept under the rug. Since every member of the Senate was complicit, they were all motivated to sweep the truth under the rug.

· This time there are multiple groups pressing for an objection, fighting and investigating. They will not pack up on Jan 6th. The truth will come out.

· If we do get an objection, however it is disposed of, each and every person that votes to uphold it is someone who WILL NOT be burdened by complicity. They will not have the same motivation to sweep the truth under the rug when future investigations show the extent of the fraud.

9. Other Sources for Talking Points

Open letter to Sen. John Kerry from Bob Fertik, President Democrats.com
http://democrats.com/kerry-letter



Questions and Answers about
Objection to Tainted Electors on January 6th, 2005

Q: Is there any irrefutable proof of election fraud?

The question itself is firmly stuck in the "Fascist Frame" (of reference). The "Fascist Frame" is the one which says that any election can be stolen and it's our burden to prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt, and put someone in jail (someone to "distance oneself" from). It's a close cousin to the "Stalinist Frame" which says: Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. -- Josef Stalin

We need to demand that ALL Americans, particularly our leaders, adopt the "American Frame" which says that we have the inalienable right to have FULL confidence that OUR election results accurately gauge the "consent of the governed," through a process that was free, fair, open, and fully auditable.

The "American Frame" requires that the presidential electors from Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico (at least) be disallowed as failing to meet the minimal standard of confidence in their result.

There is no other moral or patriotic option.

But as to proof unlawful activity, "it's the SUPPRESSION, (stupid)." We need no other "proof."

Statistical surveys and existing reports of unlawful behavior are, at their best, arguable, deniable, confusing, and frankly non-persuasive to those who are not predisposed to believe. And even if we had it, this is the simple question that changes minds:

"Are hours-long poll-tax-lines for poor, minority voters AND none for affluent, white voters a tolerable condition for you, personally?" (In essence -- Are you a racist or not?)

This is the question we are asking our political leader to BOTH answer and ask on Jan. 6th. To answer for themselves, and by so doing, ask their fellow Americans.

Q: What about these "deadlines" and Kerry's concession? Isn't it "over" already?

First, there is nothing all that substantive in a concession or un-concession by anyone. Kerry could well issue a de facto un-concession that includes the statement "I want to make it clear that I'm not retracting my concession." He could just ask that his elector slates be sent to Congress "as a precaution." Which at this point is exactly what we should be demanding that he do.

Clearly something must happen on Jan 6th. Even if that something is exactly what happened four years ago. We'd like to think that a repeat dereliction of duty becomes less likely with each passing day (of activism), but there is no compelling evidence either way. As for Jan 6, or any date for that matter, being "too late." This is simply false. It really only begs the question "too late for what?," and whatever the "answer" is, any comment is pure speculation.

This is true because no actual "deadlines" exist for anything. And any process described in any law or document need not be adhered to by Congress. Any session can be adjourned or delayed for cause. The simple lack of a quorum can see to that. As with anything Congress does, there's a simple political reality -- who's to stop them and how?

Even the electoral college "score" would carry very little weight at that point because, as someone mentioned above, demonstrated election theft in Ohio would cast a very large shadow on the results in a large number of other states.

Q: But there's really no possibility, however remote, that we can still change the outcome of the election. Isn't that true?

Not necessarily.

Should the objection been taken up, real people (with real consciences) would be forced to take a stand and justify it to their constituents and history. The "go back to bed America" crowd (Bill Hicks) would have been outed. It's one thing to not want to get involved (particularly for politicians), it's quite another to be made an active partner of the treasonous election theft.

I have difficulty believing that Chaffee, Snow, Hagel, McCain, and Mike Castle's Tuesday Group would all ignore their Democratic colleagues pleads for justice.

Sadly, the truth is that had Al Gore in 2000 rose to his historic challenge and stood on the steps of the Formally-Supreme Court and said what he believed (and btw what every unbaised analysis of the court edict has said since), that this "ruling" is clearly logical and/or legalistic hogwash, he would have led the nation into the needed discussion that could well have preserved the will of the electorate, without the need for the noble yet futile stand of the CBC.

But success doesn't necessarily require any spine from anyone. Should the debate be engaged, the reality of the situation may well override anything the DC/Media Mighty Wurlitzer could pump out. As President Clinton says, given enough information and time the American People always get it right. With luck, we may yet get the same public opinion poll numbers as we did for removing Clinton from office.

Remember the failed impeachment. The Repubss in the Senate were beside themselves trying to ditch that tar baby. And this time it wouldn't just be 70% thinking they should Moveon. It would be 70% of the public thinking that there's treason afoot. And they thought they had an image problem with Gingrich around. The spine would be required to oppose that large a majority of the public.

The neofascists as a group don't have that spine. As evidenced by the fact that they defaulted to debasing the institution of the high court to "finish this thing" last time. (If you recall, their first plan was to use the FL legislature to carry out the coup. Luntz's polling told them that simply wouldn't fly. That soiling the black robes was the only thing that would get past the public.)

And even that was only temporary. Polling on bush not winning "fair and square" started at around 15%. It climbed steadily until it reached a strong plurality. Enough so that the "we won't forget" coalition felt strong enough to mount an impeachment effort against the Felonious Five (http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4390). In fact, Democrats.com had scheduled a press conference in DC to announce the initiative (http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4623).

The press conference was scheduled for 9/11/01. (cue the ominous-sounding music)

Q: What does standing up do for my political profile/career?

Nothing bad that we can imagine. We can tell you what standing up in 2001 did for the CBC. They are now without-a-doubt HEROS to the real Democratic party base. They might have their detractors among the DC/Media Analstocracy (which includes many DC Dems), but among the regular party rank and file Fahrenheit 9-11 immortalized their heroics.

You may have been one of those exiting the theater in a daze, or (like us) waiting outside the theater with MoveOn flyers, but you know that the "conventional wisdom" coverage of the film was totally silent on the real impact of the film. The real impact had very little to do with Bush/Saudi connection theories, or graphic images from the elective war. The most consistent comment we heard over that weekend had to do with January 6th, 2001. "Why didn't we know?... I'll never forgive my Senator...Thank God for the CBC"

This was no surprise to many of us..

We have been "on this issue" for 4 years now, and at every event, seminar, meeting, Q&A, book signing etc where the "stolen election" and/or the CBC were mentioned, there was a tsunami of applause -- just for the break in the national silence (complicity) about it. This nearly always occurred to the bewilderment of those still unable to see the elephant on the dais next to them [link:dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/01/24/inauguration/index.html|.

Though a taboo subject, the Stolen Election of 2000 has been by far the primary source of renewed energy on the left for the past 4 years. There has been much analysis, from insiders and outsiders, about the Dean Campaign phenomenon. But none of it we've seen has given us reason to question our observation that at its core was Gov. Dean's willingness to say "stolen election."

Any politician who stands on principle at this time will undoubtedly also tap into this "mother lode" of energy and support. Beyond that, standing on principle always inures to the benefit of the leader who does so. As President Clinton says, people will always choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right." It's certainly no secret that of what legitimate support Bush gets, much of it is simply based on a, carefully crafted, "strong leader" perception.

Should the Democratic Party finally see the wisdom of taking this stand, of mounting such a "charge of the light brigade" (even if that's all it amounts to), it would not be surprising to see them garner an additional 5-7% of the white male vote, simply for showing the fortitude that demographic respects.

Q: Aren't we just opening ourselves up to attacks from Republicans? From the media?

Are these feared "attacks" in contrast to the usual fair, civil, and balanced treatment we get from them now?

No, we're not.

But anyway, we should all spend less time worrying about what "they" say and do. We on the left could use more "preaching to the choir."

And that requires us to "create the reality" to combat their created reality. (Ours of course grounded in something they are fairly unfamiliar with - actual reality.)

To create our (real) reality, it is our "allies" we need to focus on. And none of us should hesitate to put it to them starkly, as in: "So, you're taking the side of the bush regime over Congressman Conyers and Reverend Jackson? That is how you want to be remembered?"

Call it tough love. But we can't leave any moral escape hatches.

Because there aren't any.

1 comments


http://nov2truth.org/article.php?story=20050103124042717